Windows 7 has lower infection rate than XP.....

[red1776]

I have always said that people can be counted on to defend their decisions whether they were the correct ones or not. Check out the comments post-article. You just know deep down if Micro soft...or anyone else for that matter, reported the opposite, of this, it would be the biggest "I told you so" in computing history.

From Tom's Hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-malware-infection-rate-adware,12753.html

 

[Route44]

G, just came across this post. Very interesting. What surprised me was how much better even Vista was.

I wonder though if the sheer number of XP users as compared to Vista and 7 (I like 7) might skew this some what, i.e. greater number of users = greater potential for increased infection numbers?

 

[Archean]

Greater Number of Users > Greater Rate of Infections; no matter which OS this will always hold true .

For one simple reason, targeting 'lesser' OS isn't worth putting in the effort when compared to whatever objectives these guys do have.

 

[red1776]

Not so fast Arch....

Greater Number of Users > Greater Rate of Infections; no matter which OS this will always hold true .

For one simple reason, targeting 'lesser' OS isn't worth putting in the effort when compared to whatever objectives these guys do have.

But the numbers were "per 1000" users. I realize the numbers came from Microsoft, however I don't find it a great stretch that MS OS's have gotten better at repelling viruses. Windows 7 is improved in every other area, I don't see why security would not be among them. Windows 7 is selling faster than XP did while XP's 'market share' (yes i am using 'market share' generically) drops like a rock...
I think its not only 'a' target, but 'thee' target these days.

https://www.techspot.com/news/43443-microsoft-350-million-windows-7-licenses-sold-in-18-months.html

but wait! theres more :wave: Windows now has just over 25% of the market and an infection rate of 3.15% per thousand, while XP has 50% of the market and an infection rate of 15.9% per thousand. twice the copies, but 5 times the infection rate.
Well possibly self serving numbers aside. I was taking a poke at the rabid sector of "XP'ians who sounded very angry that it was true, rather than not believing it. back at ya Arch :wave:

 

[Archean]

I agree with your assertion, and my observation is that 7 is indeed bit less susceptible to infections, probably overall architectural improvements make it so, but even then, I will stick with my guns on this one -> any OS is as safe as the user let it to be even then it will also have lots of holes which haven't yet been reported (remember this carefully Xpian's)

 

[red1776]

I agree with your assertion, and my observation is that 7 is indeed bit less susceptible to infections, probably overall architectural improvements make it so, but even then, I will stick with my guns on this one -> any OS is as safe as the user let it to be even then it will also have lots of holes which haven't yet been reported (remember this carefully Xpian's)

Couldn't agree more!

 

[red1776]

I have always said that people can be counted on to defend their decisions whether they were the correct ones or not. Check out the comments post-article. You just know deep down if Micro soft...or anyone else for that matter, reported the opposite, of this, it would be the biggest "I told you so" in computing history.


leave it behind the bar

:haha::haha:let's see...I know! that was James Cagney in 'Public Enemy', right??

.only I think It was "Leave it behind the bar..seeeeee"

Welcome to Techspot :wave: and keep leaving it below the bar.